Steve K wrote:
That's fine by me, as long as the behaviour alteration is "good". Since we're on about speeding, an example: a York newspaper quoted motorists who were complaining about plans to use unmarked police cars to catch motorists who were speeding; the police were being seen as "unfair" by these motorists.
That very much depends on where they're going to put their unmarked cars and when. There are times and places when it is perfectly safe to exceed the legal speed limit and the police and local councils are simply after a source of revenue. I don't see that it matters terribly if I choose to do 90mph on the M25 at midnight.
You have to bear in mind that speed cameras were invented to be placed at accident blackspots in order to reduce speed where it matters and the public in general are quite happy with this. Also bear in mind that the current speed limits were put in place in the 60s and haven't been revised since, except downwards in some places by local councils. If I were driving a 1960s car with drum brakes and narrow crossply tyres, I wouldn't want to do 90mph on the M25.
As far as B7 is concerned, those cameras we see in the Way Back could be the exact equivalent of the current town centre cameras to reduce crime. Presumably criminals like Vila have ways of avoiding suppressants, and wouldn't the drugged masses be perfect targets for muggings? We can only asssume from what we know of how the Federation is run that they are also used for less pleasant purposes.
Louise
Una wrote:
<squeak!> Who is to judge whether behaviour is 'good'?
Me. :-) Well, that's why I put it in quotes.
and Louise responded to me:]
the police were being seen as "unfair" by these motorists.
That very much depends on where they're going to put their unmarked cars and when.
I beg to differ. Because although I can't argue much with this:
There are times and places when it is perfectly safe to exceed the legal speed limit
or this:
I don't see that it matters terribly if I choose to do 90mph on the M25 at midnight.
...I can take issue with the principle. There's a big ol' difference between whether it's sensible for the police to apprehend and/or prosecute, and whether you can be offended just because they didn't forewarn you.
Also bear in mind that the current speed limits were put in place in the 60s and haven't been revised since, except downwards in some places by local councils. If I were driving a 1960s car with drum brakes and narrow crossply tyres, I wouldn't want to do 90mph on the M25.
By and large, I wouldn't want to be hit by a car doing 30mph, never mind one doing 45.
As far as B7 is concerned, those cameras we see in the Way Back could be the exact equivalent of the current town centre cameras to reduce crime.
Could be. Una wrote:
But I would add that the technology which we have been discussing doesn't just have applications for preventing speeding
Indeed. But I think it's important to draw a distinction between the potential for abuse, the bad effects of a technology, and the good effects.
steve
steve wrote:
Could be. Una wrote:
But I would add that the technology which we have been discussing doesn't just have applications for preventing speeding
Indeed. But I think it's important to draw a distinction between the potential for abuse, the bad effects of a technology, and the good effects.
See chapter 2 of my thesis <g> 'Applications' was used advisedly. I guess I just have a deep paranoia about this. There's already too much standardization in life.
Una
-
Louise Rutter -
Steve Kilbane -
Una McCormack